Network Working Group J. Laganier
Request for Comments: 5204 DoCoMo Euro-Labs
Category: Experimental L. Eggert
Nokia
April 2008
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension
Status of This Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document defines a rendezvous extension for the Host Identity
Protocol (HIP). The rendezvous extension extends HIP and the HIP
registration extension for initiating communication between HIP nodes
via HIP rendezvous servers. Rendezvous servers improve reachability
and operation when HIP nodes are multi-homed or mobile.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of Rendezvous Server Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Diagram Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Rendezvous Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Relaying the Base Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Rendezvous Server Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. RENDEZVOUS Registration Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Parameter Formats and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. RVS_HMAC Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. FROM Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. VIA_RVS Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Modified Packets Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.1. Processing Outgoing I1 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2. Processing Incoming I1 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.3. Processing Outgoing R1 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.4. Processing Incoming R1 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
1. Introduction
The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture [RFC4423] introduces
the rendezvous mechanism to help a HIP node to contact a frequently
moving HIP node. The rendezvous mechanism involves a third party,
the rendezvous server (RVS), which serves as an initial contact point
("rendezvous point") for its clients. The clients of an RVS are HIP
nodes that use the HIP Registration Extension [RFC5203] to register
their HIT->IP address mappings with the RVS. After this
registration, other HIP nodes can initiate a base exchange using the
IP address of the RVS instead of the current IP address of the node
they attempt to contact. Essentially, the clients of an RVS become
reachable at the RVS's IP address. Peers can initiate a HIP base
exchange with the IP address of the RVS, which will relay this
initial communication such that the base exchange may successfully
complete.
2. Terminology
This section defines terms used throughout the remainder of this
specification.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
In addition to the terminology defined in the HIP specification
[RFC5201] and the HIP Registration Extension [RFC5203], this document
defines and uses the following terms:
Rendezvous Service
A HIP service provided by a rendezvous server to its rendezvous
clients. The rendezvous server offers to relay some of the
arriving base exchange packets between the initiator and
responder.
Rendezvous Server (RVS)
A HIP registrar providing rendezvous service.
Rendezvous Client
A HIP requester that has registered for rendezvous service at a
rendezvous server.
Rendezvous Registration
A HIP registration for rendezvous service, established between a
rendezvous server and a rendezvous client.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
3. Overview of Rendezvous Server Operation
Figure 1 shows a simple HIP base exchange without a rendezvous
server, in which the initiator initiates the exchange directly with
the responder by sending an I1 packet to the responder's IP address,
as per the HIP specification [RFC5201].
+-----+ +-----+
| |-------I1------>| |
| I || |
| || RVS |---I1--+
| +-----+ |
| v
+-----+ +-----+
| || R |
| |
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
responder R, it must send the I1 of the base exchange either to one
of R's IP addresses (if known via DNS or other means) or to one of
R's rendezvous servers. Here, I obtains the IP address of R's
rendezvous server from R's DNS record and then sends the I1 packet of
the HIP base exchange to RVS. RVS, noticing that the HIT contained
in the arriving I1 packet is not one of its own, MUST check its
current registrations to determine if it needs to relay the packets.
Here, it determines that the HIT belongs to R and then relays the I1
packet to the registered IP address. R then completes the base
exchange without further assistance from RVS by sending an R1
directly to the I's IP address, as obtained from the I1 packet. In
this specification, the client of the RVS is always the responder.
However, there might be reasons to allow a client to initiate a base
exchange through its own RVS, like NAT and firewall traversal. This
specification does not address such scenarios, which should be
specified in other documents.
3.1. Diagram Notation
Notation Significance
-------- ------------
I, R I and R are the respective source and destination IP
addresses in the IP header.
HIT-I, HIT-R HIT-I and HIT-R are the initiator's and the
responder's HITs in the packet, respectively.
REG_REQ A REG_REQUEST parameter is present in the HIP header.
REG_RES A REG_RESPONSE parameter is present in the HIP header.
FROM:I A FROM parameter containing the IP address I is
present in the HIP header.
RVS_HMAC An RVS_HMAC parameter containing an HMAC keyed with the
appropriate registration key is present in the HIP
header.
VIA:RVS A VIA_RVS parameter containing the IP address RVS of a
rendezvous server is present in the HIP header.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
3.2. Rendezvous Client Registration
Before a rendezvous server starts to relay HIP packets to a
rendezvous client, the rendezvous client needs to register with it to
receive rendezvous service by using the HIP Registration Extension
[RFC5203] as illustrated in the following schema:
+-----+ +-----+
| | I1 | |
| |--------------------------->| |
| || |
| |
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
I1(RVS, R, HIT-I, HIT-R
I1(I, RVS, HIT-I, HIT-R) +---------+ FROM:I, RVS_HMAC)
+----------------------->| |--------------------+
| | RVS | |
| | | |
| +---------+ |
| V
+-----+ R1(R, I, HIT-R, HIT-I, VIA:RVS) +-----+
| || |
| |
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
Number Registration Type
------ -----------------
1 RENDEZVOUS
4.2. Parameter Formats and Processing
4.2.1. RVS_HMAC Parameter
The RVS_HMAC is a non-critical parameter whose only difference with
the HMAC parameter defined in the HIP specification [RFC5201] is its
"type" code. This change causes it to be located after the FROM
parameter (as opposed to the HMAC):
Type 65500
Length Variable. Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
Padding.
HMAC HMAC computed over the HIP packet, excluding the
RVS_HMAC parameter and any following parameters. The
HMAC is keyed with the appropriate HIP integrity key
(HIP-lg or HIP-gl) established when rendezvous
registration happened. The HIP "checksum" field MUST be set
to zero, and the HIP header length in the HIP common header
MUST be calculated not to cover any excluded parameter
when the HMAC is calculated. The size of the
HMAC is the natural size of the hash computation
output depending on the used hash function.
To allow a rendezvous client and its RVS to verify the integrity of
packets flowing between them, both SHOULD protect packets with an
added RVS_HMAC parameter keyed with the HIP-lg or HIP-gl integrity
key established while registration occurred. A valid RVS_HMAC SHOULD
be present on every packet flowing between a client and a server and
MUST be present when a FROM parameter is processed.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
4.2.2. FROM Parameter
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type 65498
Length 16
Address An IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address.
A rendezvous server MUST add a FROM parameter containing the original
source IP address of a HIP packet whenever the source IP address in
the IP header is rewritten. If one or more FROM parameters are
already present, the new FROM parameter MUST be appended after the
existing ones.
Whenever an RVS inserts a FROM parameter, it MUST insert an RVS_HMAC
protecting the packet integrity, especially the IP address included
in the FROM parameter.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
4.2.3. VIA_RVS Parameter
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . .
. . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type 65502
Length Variable
Address An IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address.
After the responder receives a relayed I1 packet, it can begin to
send HIP packets addressed to the initiator's IP address, without
further assistance from an RVS. For debugging purposes, it MAY
include a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of these
packets. When a responder does so, it MUST append a newly created
VIA_RVS parameter at the end of the HIP packet. The main goal of
using the VIA_RVS parameter is to allow operators to diagnose
possible issues encountered while establishing a HIP association via
an RVS.
4.3. Modified Packets Processing
The following subsections describe the differences of processing of
I1 and R1 while a rendezvous server is involved in the base exchange.
4.3.1. Processing Outgoing I1 Packets
An initiator SHOULD NOT send an opportunistic I1 with a NULL
destination HIT to an IP address that is known to be a rendezvous
server address, unless it wants to establish a HIP association with
the rendezvous server itself and does not know its HIT.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
When an RVS rewrites the source IP address of an I1 packet due to
egress filtering, it MUST add a FROM parameter to the I1 that
contains the initiator's source IP address. This FROM parameter MUST
be protected by an RVS_HMAC keyed with the integrity key established
at rendezvous registration.
4.3.2. Processing Incoming I1 Packets
When a rendezvous server receives an I1 whose destination HIT is not
its own, it consults its registration database to find a registration
for the rendezvous service established by the HIT owner. If it finds
an appropriate registration, it relays the packet to the registered
IP address. If it does not find an appropriate registration, it
drops the packet.
A rendezvous server SHOULD interpret any incoming opportunistic I1
(i.e., an I1 with a NULL destination HIT) as an I1 addressed to
itself and SHOULD NOT attempt to relay it to one of its clients.
When a rendezvous client receives an I1, it MUST validate any present
RVS_HMAC parameter. If the RVS_HMAC cannot be verified, the packet
SHOULD be dropped. If the RVS_HMAC cannot be verified and a FROM
parameter is present, the packet MUST be dropped.
A rendezvous client acting as responder SHOULD drop opportunistic I1s
that include a FROM parameter, because this indicates that the I1 has
been relayed.
4.3.3. Processing Outgoing R1 Packets
When a responder replies to an I1 relayed via an RVS, it MUST append
to the regular R1 header a VIA_RVS parameter containing the IP
addresses of the traversed RVSs.
4.3.4. Processing Incoming R1 Packets
The HIP specification [RFC5201] mandates that a system receiving an
R1 MUST first check to see if it has sent an I1 to the originator of
the R1 (i.e., the system is in state I1-SENT). When the R1 is
replying to a relayed I1, this check SHOULD be based on HITs only.
In case the IP addresses are also checked, then the source IP address
MUST be checked against the IP address included in the VIA_RVS
parameter.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
5. Security Considerations
This section discusses the known threats introduced by these HIP
extensions and the implications on the overall security of HIP. In
particular, it argues that the extensions described in this document
do not introduce additional threats to the Host Identity Protocol.
It is difficult to encompass the whole scope of threats introduced by
rendezvous servers because their presence has implications both at
the IP and HIP layers. In particular, these extensions might allow
for redirection, amplification, and reflection attacks at the IP
layer, as well as attacks on the HIP layer itself, for example, man-
in-the-middle attacks against the HIP base exchange.
If an initiator has a priori knowledge of the responder's host
identity when it first contacts the responder via an RVS, it has a
means to verify the signatures in the HIP base exchange, which
protects against man-in-the-middle attacks.
If an initiator does not have a priori knowledge of the responder's
host identity (so-called "opportunistic initiators"), it is almost
impossible to defend the HIP exchange against these attacks, because
the public keys exchanged cannot be authenticated. The only approach
would be to mitigate hijacking threats on HIP state by requiring an
R1 answering an opportunistic I1 to come from the same IP address
that originally sent the I1. This procedure retains a level of
security that is equivalent to what exists in the Internet today.
However, for reasons of simplicity, this specification does not allow
the establishment of a HIP association via a rendezvous server in an
opportunistic manner.
6. IANA Considerations
This section is to be interpreted according to the Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs [RFC2434].
This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameters Types by
assigning new HIP Parameter Types values for the new HIP Parameters
defined in Section 4.2:
o RVS_HMAC (defined in Section 4.2.1)
o FROM (defined in Section 4.2.2)
o VIA_RVS (defined in Section 4.2.3)
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
This document defines an additional registration for the HIP
Registration Extension [RFC5203] that allows registering with a
rendezvous server for rendezvous service.
Number Registration Type
------ -----------------
1 RENDEZVOUS
7. Acknowledgments
The following people have provided thoughtful and helpful discussions
and/or suggestions that have improved this document: Marcus Brunner,
Tom Henderson, Miika Komu, Mika Kousa, Pekka Nikander, Justino
Santos, Simon Schuetz, Tim Shepard, Kristian Slavov, Martin
Stiemerling, and Juergen Quittek.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC5201] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., Ed., and T.
Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.
[RFC5203] Laganier, J., Koponen, T., and L. Eggert, "Host Identity
Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension", RFC 5203,
April 2008.
[RFC5205] Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, "Host Identity Protocol
(HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions", RFC 5205,
April 2008.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 13]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
[RFC3013] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider
Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013,
November 2000.
[RFC4423] Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
(HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.
[RFC5206] Henderson, T., Ed., "End-Host Mobility and Multihoming
with the Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5206, April 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Julien Laganier
DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 312
Munich 80687
Germany
Phone: +49 89 56824 231
EMail: julien.ietf@laposte.net
URI: http://www.docomolab-euro.com/
Lars Eggert
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
Nokia Group 00045
Finland
Phone: +358 50 48 24461
EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com
URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 5204 HIP Rendezvous Extension April 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Laganier & Eggert Experimental [Page 15]